Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 21
#1819486
Well,

I have already written off 2021 and am looking forward to 2022.

Whilst the UK may have made good progress by the summer on vaccination etc, there will be places which will only be at the start of the process.

So yes, I'm looking forward to 2022. if thinks improve massively in the meantime, that will be a bonus but not something to bank on. Otherwise the constant disappointment will drive one nuts.
#1819631
Those supposedly in charge are simply tying themselves up in knots.

On the one hand you have Cressida Dick saying Boris Johnson's cycle in east London at the weekend was "not against the law", but then goes on to say that the "stay local" rules on exercise for England could be made more clear, implying he may have broken a rule.

The police can only enforce the law and e.g. issue a fixed penalty notice if they believe the law to have been broken. They cannot enforce rules or guidance that have no legal standing. I am therefore unsure how clarifying a rule makes any difference from a strictly legal standpoint.

The law makers may have looked at the pros and cons of having rather vague laws against something much more prescriptive and decided to go with the present situation and accept there might be some controversies, on the basis much of the general public is likely simply to go along with the spirit of the government’s intentions, especially if the manner in which the message is by and large promulgated is that the rules and guidance are in fact the law.

N.B. Not intended as a political comment or to break forum rules.
N.B.2. Not intended as a comment on what people should or should not be doing.
#1819647
The French had a distance limit from home, which seems more sensible, I cycle a lot and frankly staying in my village would mean going back and forth about 50 times to get any meaningful exercise! You could say "Local authority" but that would mean a 60km ride as I am at one edge.
Boris has been holed up in No.10 for months now, a short (that is what it was) bike ride shouldn't be denied him.
#1819660
VFRBimbler wrote:Those supposedly in charge are simply tying themselves up in knots.

On the one hand you have Cressida Dick saying Boris Johnson's cycle in east London at the weekend was "not against the law", but then goes on to say that the "stay local" rules on exercise for England could be made more clear, implying he may have broken a rule.

The police can only enforce the law and e.g. issue a fixed penalty notice if they believe the law to have been broken. They cannot enforce rules or guidance that have no legal standing. I am therefore unsure how clarifying a rule makes any difference from a strictly legal standpoint.

The law makers may have looked at the pros and cons of having rather vague laws against something much more prescriptive and decided to go with the present situation and accept there might be some controversies, on the basis much of the general public is likely simply to go along with the spirit of the government’s intentions, especially if the manner in which the message is by and large promulgated is that the rules and guidance are in fact the law.

N.B. Not intended as a political comment or to break forum rules.
N.B.2. Not intended as a comment on what people should or should not be doing.


Couldnt agree more.

The job of the police is to enforce the law (or one of their jobs). Reasonably they might hand out their own view on what it is sensible to do and not do, but this is another matter.

In my view it is not their job to unreasoanbly interpret the law or second guess the will of Parliament.

The recent FPNs are a good point in question. They stood zero chance of succeeding in Court, and to make matters worse, they stood zero chance of the public purse taking the offenders to Court. The danger is therefore people pay because they think they should, or dont understand the way the process works, end up with the FPN on their permanent record, when in fact the FPN should never have been issued in the first place.

The job of the police where it comes to bringing an action is that they only do so in cases where these is a reasonable chance of success, and in these cases, the test is not even close to being met.

I dont mind a bit of saber rattling, but this is going too far, and the trouble is it impinges on the very important concept of policing by consent.

(Same caveats above about rules and political content which is not in any way intended or implied)
#1819664
malcolmfrost wrote:The French had a distance limit from home, which seems more sensible....


That wouldn't work for someone I know. For complicated (health) reasons, where she is is very hilly, and she needs to go somewhere flat to exercise since hills are too much. This involves a drive to a flatter area, which I'm not sure is within a distance limit suitable for many others. And it's particularly important for her health that she does get some exercise at the moment.

Unfortunately the moment you try to be specific, you end up excluding people with genuine need who wouldn't be causing any harm by being accommodated. I think this is the main motivation for keeping the law flexible.
#1819699
malcolmfrost wrote:There are always "outliers" who could discuss/explain with the police if they happened to be asked.


They can today, but if you try to narrow down the law, you'd be making criminals of them. As recent news has shown, the police sometimes have no ability to use their discretion. That's why it's important that the law is written carefully so as not to make criminals of innocent people.

Otherwise, the police/CPS will prosecute because they feel they ought to, and the court will have no choice to convict these people because that's what the law says. Not allowing for outliers in the law allows for the removal of common sense.

The only reason the two women had their fines cancelled is because the media made a big deal of it. For each of them there are inevitably hundreds of others who are not so lucky.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 21